Nothing is guaranteed in life. Vaccines do carry risks, but the risk of harm is greater without the vaccine. I have asked you numerous times before to show me where in the package insert it says one of the risks is "chronic illnesses" and death.
You're overestimating the risks of vaccinating (and inventing risks) and underestimating the harm vaccine preventable diseases can cause. The risk of encephalitis (brain swelling) following infection with the measles virus is 1 in 1000, the risk of encephalitis following vaccination is one in a MILLION. This is basic math.
Another example: Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
Diphtheria death: 1 in 20; Tetanus death: 2 in 10; Pertussis - Pneumonia: 1 in 8, Encephalitis: 1 in 20, Death: 1 in 1,500
The risk of the DTap vaccine: Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000, Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000, Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000. Death: None proven
The benefits outweigh the risks. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#risk
Anecdotes (stories) aren't data. They are a perception of something that has been experienced or, witnessed with their bias firmly grounded. They shouldn't be rejected, sometimes they warrant a basis for further investigation, to establish data, but the story in itself is not data. Just because something happens *after* vaccination, does not necessarily mean it occurred *because* of vaccination.Read more about this fallacy: http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html
I don't think you understand probability: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/understanding-risk
"I have researched into childhood diseases and most are very benign and have extremely high survival rates so long as your child has a healthy immune system. "
Post-infectious encephalitis is a well known complication of a number of common infections (measles, mumps, varicella and influenza to name a few). The immune system produces antibodies intended to fight the infection, but are sent to the brain instead, causing inflammation of the tissue. Sometimes it is your own healthy immune system that causes the damage.
"Why would anyone risk their child's life and overall health with a vaccine injection to only maybe protect them from a disease they most likely won't get "
Currently, the unvaccinated are protected by the herd immunity provided by others; in short the risks of catching the disease is rare because thanks to vaccines these diseases have a very low incidence. However, this is sadly no longer the case for some diseases. Measles is endemic in part of the UK and we are experiencing the biggest outbreak of whooping cough we have seen in 20 years, in the US, the worst in 70 years.
" But if you choose not to vaccinate then you are guaranteed your child won't suffer from one or more of the many possible adverse reactions. I'd much rather go with the guarantee"
You're creating a false dichotomy but choosing between diseases and vaccine injury. More harm will come from avoiding vaccines.
"Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated"
The problem we are seeing at the moment is two fold, well possibly three but we need more data on the other factor. One of the factors is waning immunity. The vaccine does not last as long as previously thought, this does NOT mean the vaccine does not work, we just need to adjust the schedule to include boosters. The second factor is poor uptake. When these factors co-exist, we get outbreaks. The CDC state, “Vaccination continues to be the single most effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality caused by pertussis.
And NaturalNews are making stuff up by claiming vaccinated children had higher rates of pertussis than unvaccinated, this isn't stated in the news article OR original research. The Reuters article are not talking about unvaccinated verses vaccinated, they said, “immunized children between eight and 12 years old were more likely to catch the bacterial disease than kids of other ages." which ties is perfectly with waning immunity. Always look at the source, don't take Mike Adams word for it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=David%20Witt%20pertussis
Polio very clearly isn't pesticide exposure. You're confusing correlation with causation. See the link above, "post hoc ergo propter hoc"
And it's not even that much of a correlation. The drop in incidence of polio precedes the decline in the production of DDT.
You've been duped, Holly.
There are many who have been in your position: http://momswhovax.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/from-anti-vax-to-pro-vax-one-moms-story.html